G.R. Nos. 118620-21. September 1, 1997.
* lived in the same barangay as the witnesses and had easy
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.
NARITO @ “NARING” DADLES, accused-appellant.
Evidence; Witnesses; Delay in Reporting a Crime; Lapse of
considerable length of time before a witness comes forward to
reveal the identity of the perpetrators of the crime does not
taint the credibility of the witness and his testimony were such
delay is satisfactorily explained.—This court finds neither of
the aforementioned circumstances sufficient to detract from the
credibility of the prosecution witnesses. It has been held in a
large number of cases that the lapse of a considerable length of
time before a witness comes forward to reveal the identity of
the perpetrators of the crime does not taint the credibility of the
witness and his testimony where such delay is satisfactorily
explained. Also, this court has had occasion to observe that
delay in reporting the occurrence of a crime or other unusual
events in rural areas is well known and should thus, not be
taken against the witness.
Same; Same; Same; It is of common human experience that
people overcome by great fear, not only for their lives but also
of those of their loved ones, will choose to remain tight-lipped
about an incident and suffer in silence rather than expose to
risk their own safety and of those for whom they care.—It is
evident that the prosecution witnesses were overcome by fear
that the appellant and his companions would make good their
threat the moment they report the incident to the police. This is
undoubtedly the same fear which deterred them from
confronting the appellant despite their many opportunities to do
so. The prosecution witnesses were well aware that the
appellant did not act alone but was aided by several other men
and that they all possessed firearms. Furthermore, the appellant
access to them. Under the circumstances, the witnesses could
not be blamed for reporting the incident only after they were
already able to transfer residence to another barangay. Contrary
to appellant’s allegation, such a reaction is natural, spontaneous
and logical in view of the witnesses’ first impulse for self-
preservation. It is of common human experience that people
overcome by great fear, not only for their lives but also of those
of their loved ones, will choose to
_________________
*
THIRD DIVISION.
394
394 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
People vs. Dadles
remain tight-lipped about an incident and suffer in silence
rather than expose to risk their own safety and of those for
whom they care.
Same; Same; Positive Identification of Accused; Alibi; View
that the defense of alibi cannot prevail over the positive
identification of the accused by the prosecution witnesses who
had no untoward motive to falsely testify against accused.—
Anent the appellant’s defense, suffice it to state that his alibi
even if supported by the testimonies of his friends, deserves the
barest consideration. This court has held time and again that the
defense of alibi cannot prevail over the positive identification
of the accused by the prosecution witnesses who had no
untoward motive to falsely testify against him. Relevant is the
fact that there appears to be no motive on the part of the
prosecution witnesses to fabricate a criminal charge against the
appellant who is admittedly an acquaintance and whom they
have welcomed in their respective households several times in
the past. It must be noted that the prosecution witnesses in this
case are immediate relatives of the victims whose natural
interest in obtaining justice and redress by securing the
conviction of the parties responsible for the crime would deter
them from implicating persons other than the real culprits.
Same; Same; Alibi; For alibi to offset the evidence of the
prosecution demonstrating the guilt of the accused, he must
establish not only that he was somewhere else when the crime
was committed but also that it was physically impossible for
him to have been at the scene of the crime at the time it was
committed.—Just as oft-repeated is the rule that for alibi to
offset the evidence of the prosecution demonstrating the guilt
of the accused, he must establish not only that he was
somewhere else when the crime was committed but also that it
was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of
the crime at the time that it was committed. The defense has
failed to meet the requisites of time and place. Nowhere from
the testimonies of the defense witnesses nor from the
circumstances of the case may we infer that it was physically
impossible for the appellant to be at the scene of the crime at
the alleged time of its commission.
Same; Same; Same; The absence of public transportation does
not negate the possibility that the appellant availed of other
modes of transportation present at that hour. Thus, it was not
totally improbable for the appellant to have hitched a ride in
one of the many trucks plying that route.—Rogelio’s testimony
succeeds only in establishing that the appellant slept in his
house on the night of May 24, 1989.
395
VOL. 278, SEPTEMBER 1, 1997 395
People vs. Dadles
Rogelio who slept in another room could not have known if
appellant left his house sometime during the night after
everyone else had fallen asleep. Furthermore, from the
appellant’s own admission, Barangay Amontay is only 30
kilometers away from Barangay San Pedro. The defense’s
theory that as there was no longer any public transportation
available after six o’clock in the evening, it was impossible for
the appellant to have been able to reach Barangay Amontay
fails to persuade. The absence of public transportation does not
negate the possibility that the appellant availed of other modes
of transportation present at that hour. Thus, it was not totally
improbable for the appellant to have hitched a ride in one of the
many trucks plying that route.
Same; Same; Same; The opinion of the trial court as to who
among the witnesses should be believed is entitled to great
respect, the latter having had the unequalled opportunity to
directly observe the witnesses and to determine by their
demeanor on the stand the probative value of their
testimonies.—As the core issue in the appellant’s first
assignment of error is ultimately the credibility of the
prosecution vis-a-vis the defense witnesses, it may not be amiss
to state herein the well-settled doctrine that the opinion of the
trial court as to who of them should be believed is entitled to
great respect, the latter having had the unequalled opportunity
to directly observe the witnesses and to determine by their
demeanor on the stand the probative value of their testimonies.
And none of the recognized exceptions to the rule, that is,
where the record shows that facts and circumstances of weight
and influence have been overlooked, misunderstood or
misapplied by the trial court which, if considered, would have
affected the result of the case, and when such findings are
arbitrary, exist in the case at bench.
Same; Same; Same; That the victims’ hands were not tied nor
guns poked at their sides when they were taken by the
appellant’s group do not conclusively preclude the deprivation
of their liberty.—As regards the victims Salvador and Antonio
Alipan, the appellant points out that the testimony of
Luzviminda who witnessed the alleged kidnapping demonstrate
that the victims were not deprived of their liberty because they
went with the appellant and his companions peacefully without
being subjected to threats and coercion. The court is not
convinced. That the victims’ hands were not tied nor guns
poked at their sides when they were taken by the appellant’s
group do not conclusively preclude the deprivation of their
liberty. The circumstances surrounding the taking of Salvador
and Antonio,
396
396 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
People vs. Dadles
particularly the appellant and his companions’ previous
conduct in kidnapping victims Alipio and Dionisio, plainly
demonstrate their intent to likewise deprive Salvador and
Antonio of their liberty.
Same; Admissibility of Evidence; The general rule is that
evidence is not admissible which shows or tends to show, that
the accused in a criminal case has committed a crime wholly
independent of the offense for which he is on trial.—True it is
that “evidence that one did or did not do a certain thing at one
time is not admissible to prove that he did or did not do the
same or similar thing at another time.” However, “it may be
received to prove a specific intent or knowledge, identity, plan,
system, scheme, habit, custom or usage, and the like.” Thus we
have held that: “The general rule is that evidence is not
admissible which shows or tends to show, that the accused in a
criminal case has committed a crime wholly independent of the
offense for which he is on trial. It is not competent to prove
that he committed other crimes of a like nature for the purpose
of showing that he would be likely to commit the crime
charged in the indictment. A man may be a notorious criminal,
but this fact may not be shown to influence a jury in passing
upon the question of his guilt or innocence of the particular
offense for which he is on trial. A man may have committed
many crimes and still be innocent of the crime charged in the
case on trial. To permit proof of other crimes would naturally
predispose the minds of the jurors against the defendant. One
who commits one crime may be more likely to commit another;
yet logically, one crime does not prove another, nor tend to
prove another, unless there is such a relation between them that
proof of one tends to prove the other.”
APPEAL from a decision of the Regional Trial Court of
Himamaylan, Negros Occidental, Br. 55.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.
 Public Attorney’s Office for accused-appellant.
FRANCISCO, J.:
This case involves the alleged kidnapping of two farmers,
Alipio Tehidor and Salvador Alipan and their respective sons,
Dionisio and Antonio from their homes in Barangay Amontay,
Binalbagan, Negros Occidental on May 24, 1989. For the said
397
VOL. 278, SEPTEMBER 1, 1997 397
People vs. Dadles
kidnapping, appellant Narito alias “Naring” Dadles was
charged in two separate informations, to wit:
“That on or about the 24th day of May, 1989, in the
Municipality of Binalbagan, Province of Negros Occidental,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the first above-named accused, in company of his five
(5) other co-accused, whose true names are still unknown and
herein designated only as “Ka Morito,” “Ka Willy,” “Ka
Dindo,” “Ka Mike” and “Ka Juanito,” who are all still at large,
armed with assorted firearms of unknown calibers, conspiring,
confederating and mutually helping one another, by means of
force, violence and intimidation, did then and there, wilfully,
unlawfully and feloniously take, kidnap, detain, and keep
ALIPIO TEHIDOR and DIONISIO TEHIDOR under guard,
from their residence at Brgy. Amontay of the abovenamed
municipality, and bring them somewhere in the hinterlands of
said municipality, under restraint and against their will, without
proper authority thereof, thereby depriving said victims of their
civil liberties since then up to the present.”1
and
“That on or about the 24th day of May, 1989, in the
Municipality of Binalbagan, Province of Negros Occidental,
Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,
the first abovenamed accused, in company of his nine (9) other
co-accused, whose true names are still unknown and herein
designated only as “Ka Dindo,” “Ka Morito,” “Ka Tiwi,” “Ka
Amay,” “Ka Bobby,” “Ka Pedro,” “Ka Juanito,” “Ka
Bernardo” and “Ka Mike” who are all still at large, armed with
assorted firearms of unknown caliber, conspiring,
confederating and mutually helping one another, by means of
force, violence and intimidation, did then and there, wilfully,
unlawfully and feloniously take, kidnap, detain, and keep
Salvador Alipan alias “Bado” and Antonio Alipan under guard,
from their residence at Barangay Amontay of the above-named
municipality, and bring them somewhere in the hinterlands of
said municipality, under restraint and against their will, without
proper authority thereof,
_________________
1
INFORMATION in Criminal Case No. 478, November 21,
1991; Records, p. 18.
398
398 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
People vs. Dadles
thereby depriving said victims of their civil liberties since then
up to the present.”2
Of the several accused named in the aforequoted informations,
only appellant was arraigned while the cases against the other
accused who remain at large up to the present have been
temporarily archived until their apprehension. At the
arraignment, the appellant pleaded not guilty to both counts of
kidnapping. Upon joint manifestation of the Public Prosecutor
and the defense counsel, both cases were ordered consolidated
and were jointly tried.3
On the abduction of victims Alipio and Dionisio Tehidor,
prosecution witnesses Francisca Tehidor and Danilo Tehidor
testified as follows:
On May 24, 1989 at around 11:00 o’clock in the evening, the
appellant Narito alias “Naring” Dadles together with five (5)
others, namely Dindo, Mike, Willy, Morito, and Juanito arrived
at the residence of one of the victims, Alipio Tehidor, in
Barangay Amontay, Binalbagan, Negros Occidental. Alipio,
his wife, Francisca, and their two sons Dionisio and Danilo
were awakened from their sleep when the appellant and his
companions called Alipio from downstairs. The group which
was known to the Tehidor family because they used to visit the
latter’s house to ask for rice was allowed to enter by Francisca.
Once inside, they told Francisca that they wanted to talk to
Alipio downstairs. Francisca asked them not to bring Alipio
outside and to just talk to him upstairs but her request went
unheeded. Then Morito, assisted by the appellant, tied the
hands of Alipio and Dionisio. When Francisca protested, the
appellant’s group told her that they would free Alipio and
Dionisio if they surrender the firearms of their two other sons,
Logenio and Jenny, both of whom were members of the
Civilian Armed Forces Geographical Units (CAFGU). Unable
to surrender the said firearms which were not in the possession
_________________
2
INFORMATION in Criminal Case No. 479, November 21,
1991; Records, p. 19.
3
DECISION in Criminal Cases Nos. 478 & 479, March 29,
1994, p. 3; Rollo, p. 62.
399
VOL. 278, SEPTEMBER 1, 1997 399
People vs. Dadles
of the spouses Tehidor, the appellant’s group forced Alipio and
Dionisio to walk with them to an unknown place. Since then
and up to the present, Francisca has not heard from either her
husband or her son.4
On the other hand, prosecution witnesses Luzviminda Alipan
and Vicente Alipan narrated the alleged kidnapping of
Salvador and Antonio Alipan in this wise:
On May 24, 1989 at around 11:30 in the evening while
Salvador, his wife, Luzviminda and their sons, Vicente and
Antonio were in their house in Barangay Amontay,
Binalbagan, Negros Occidental, they heard somebody calling
them from outside. Luzviminda lighted a lamp and opened the
door. She saw the appellant and his nine (9) companions
namely, Dindo, Morito, Amay, Pedro, Juanito, Bernardo, Tiwi,
Mike and Bobby who were all armed. The appellant and Dindo 400 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
went upstairs and told Salvador to go with them downstairs as People vs. Dadles
they have something to talk about. Salvador who was
apparently acquainted with the group acceded and followed the
Binalbagan, Negros Occidental. As Rogelio was not able to pay
appellant and Dindo downstairs. Then the appellant told
appellant on the said date, the former allowed the appellant to
Luzviminda, “Nay, we will borrow Tatay, we will return him
sleep over in his house until the following morning. However,
tomorrow.” When Luzviminda refused, the appellant assured
Rogelio was able to pay the appellant only at around 6:00
her saying, “Nay, don’t worry, just let Tatay go with us
o’clock in the evening of the next day. Thus, upon the advice
together with your son because they will be returned
of Rogelio, the appellant decided to stay and sleep in the
tomorrow.” Thereafter, Salvador and Antonio left with the
former’s house for another night. He went home to Barangay
group to an unknown destination. And like Francisca,
Amontay at around 7:00 o’clock the following morning.6
Luzviminda never saw her husband and son again after that
night.5
Rogelio Ariola who is a Minister of the Apostolic Church and a
resident of Barangay San Pedro, Binalbagan, Negros
Appellant denied the charges against him and interposed an
Occidental testified that on May 24, 1989, there was an
alibi. The defense attempted to prove that on the said date and
occasion in their church and he went home at around 6:00
time of the alleged kidnapping of the victims, the appellant was
o’clock in the evening to attend to his guests, some of whom
in the house of defense witness Rogelio Ariola sleeping
were members of his church. The appellant was also in his
soundly after a round of beer with the latter and his other
house as he had delivered fruits to Rogelio the previous day
guests.
and was waiting to be paid therefor. It was customary for the
appellant to sleep in Rogelio’s house whenever the latter could
The appellant who was engaged in the business of selling fruits
not immediately pay him for the fruits delivered. Since Rogelio
claimed that he delivered fruits to one of his usual customers,
paid the appellant only at around 6:00 o’clock in the evening of
Rogelio, on May 23, 1989 in Barangay San Pedro,
May 24, the latter was no longer able to go home to Barangay
Amontay. Rogelio invited the appellant to sleep in his house
____________________
again that night and the latter accepted.7
4
Ibid., pp. 5-7; Rollo, pp. 64-66.
In the meantime, Rogelio entertained his guests by buying
5 Gold Eagle Beer for them to drink. Their drinking session
Ibid., pp. 3-5; Rollo, pp. 62-64.
lasted until 10:00 o’clock in the evening, after which, his
visitors went home leaving behind the appellant who then slept
400
in one of the rooms in Rogelio’s house.8
Finding the alibi of the appellant insufficient to controvert his
positive identification by the prosecution witnesses, Branch 55
of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Himamaylan, Negros
Occidental rendered a decision convicting the appellant of two
(2) counts of kidnapping and serious illegal detention. He was
sentenced to suffer the penalty of “double life
___________________
6
Ibid., pp. 9-10; Rollo, pp. 68-69.
7
Ibid., pp. 8-9; Rollo, pp. 67-68.
8
Ibid.
401
VOL. 278, SEPTEMBER 1, 1997 401
People vs. Dadles
imprisonment” and to indemnify the families of the victims in
the amount of one hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) each
without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.9
Hence the present appeal before this Court where the appellant
raises the following assignment of errors:
I 9
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GIVING MUCH WEIGHT
AND CREDENCE ON (sic) THE EVIDENCE FOR THE
PROSECUTION AND IN DISREGARDING THE
EVIDENCE FOR THE DEFENSE.
II
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING
ACCUSED-APPELLANT NARITO DADLES OF TWO (2)
COUNTS OF KIDNAPPING AND SERIOUS ILLEGAL
DETENTION.10
In assailing the credibility of the prosecution witnesses, the
appellant asseverates that their failure to confront him about the
disappearance of the victims despite several opportunities to do
so after the alleged incident casts a doubt on the truthfulness of
their accusation. The appellant brands as incredulous the
testimonies of the prosecution witnesses that although they
would see the appellant during Sundays which is the market
day in Barangay Amontay, they did not ask him about their
missing relatives.11 According to the appellant, likewise
puzzling is the failure of the prosecution witnesses to report the
incident to the authorities immediately when their respective
husbands and sons failed to return the following morning as
promised by the appellant and his companions.12
This court finds neither of the aforementioned circumstances
sufficient to detract from the credibility of the prosecution
witnesses. It has been held in a large number of cases that the
lapse of a considerable length of time before a wit-
________________
Ibid., p. 14; Rollo, p. 73.
10
BRIEF FOR THE ACCUSED APPELLANT, p. 1; Rollo, p.
27.
11
Ibid., pp. 22-23; Rollo, pp. 48-49. And you did not likewise report the incident to any of the
military personnel who were patrolling at your area, is that
12
Ibid., p. 23; Rollo, p. 49. correct?
ANSWER:
402
We were not able to report the matter to the military
authority because we were warned by these people not to
402 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED report because if we will report they will kill us all.”15
People vs. Dadles (Italics supplied.)

ness comes forward to reveal the identity of the perpetrators of Danilo Tehidor likewise testified that the appellant and his
the crime does not taint the credibility of the witness and his companions threatened their family with execution should they
testimony where such delay is satisfactorily explained.13 Also, report the matter to the authorities:
this court has had occasion to observe that delay in reporting
the occurrence of a crime or other unusual events in rural areas ______________________
is well known and should thus not be taken against the
witness.14 13
People vs. Reoveros, 247 SCRA 628, 633 [1995]; People vs.
Dominguez, et al., 217 SCRA 170 [1993]; People vs.
In the instant case, the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses Villanueva, 242 SCRA 47 [1995]; People vs. Vallena, 244
reveal that it was their overriding fear of reprisal from the SCRA 685 [1995].
appellant’s group that prevented them from seeking the aid of
the authorities. Thus, Vicente Alipan testified as follows: 14
People vs. Carizo, 233 SCRA 687, 700 [1994]; People vs.
Belen, 194 SCRA 447 [1991].
“QUESTION:
15
Now, after the alleged incident, did you ever report this TSN, Vicente Alipan, August 20, 1992, p. 14.
matter to the police authority or any military personnel in
your area, if any? 403
ANSWER:
VOL. 278, 403
I was not able to report this matter to the authorities.
SEPTEMBER 1,
xxx xxx xxx 1997
QUESTION: People vs. Dadles
“QUESTION:
 Immediately after that incident when your No basis. There was no answer that this
father and your brother were forcibly taken witness was warned not to report to the
by Naring and his group, why did you not police.
immediately report the matter to the police? COURT:
ANSWER: Guarded only.
Because at that time we were warned not to PROSECUTOR AREVALO:
report, they were guarding us. QUESTION:
QUESTION: How do(sic) you know that you and any
Who were guarding you? members (sic) of your family is (sic) being
ANSWER: guarded from the moment you tried to go
The companions of the accused. out from your place?
QUESTION: ANSWER:
Why after the incident were there occasions They sent us a letter warning us that if ever
that this Narito Dadles and his companions we report the matter to the authorities they
visited you in your house or have seen you will kill all of us.
elsewhere, were there instances? QUESTION:
ANSWER: Who sent the letter to your family?
Yes, sir.
QUESTION: 404
Do (sic) they visit your house after that
incident? 404 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
ANSWER: People vs. Dadles
Not in the house, only in a certain market ANSWER:
place. Dindo.
QUESTION: QUESTION:
Who among your (sic) members of the Whom (sic) did Dindo send the letter?
family being (sic) warned by Narito Dadles ANSWER:
or his group not to report the matter to the The letter was sent to my mother through a child
police? courier.”16 (Italics supplied.)
ATTY. LABIS:
It is evident that the prosecution witnesses were overcome by
fear that the appellant and his companions would make good
their threat the moment they report the incident to the police.
This is undoubtedly the same fear which deterred them from
confronting the appellant despite their many opportunities to do
so. The prosecution witnesses were well aware that the
appellant did not act alone but was aided by several other men
and that they all possessed firearms. Furthermore, the appellant
lived in the same barangay as the witnesses and had easy
access to them. Under the circumstances, the witnesses could
not be blamed for reporting the incident only after they were
already able to transfer residence to another barangay. Contrary
to appellant’s allegation, such a reaction is natural, spontaneous
and logical in view of the witnesses’ first impulse for self-
preservation. It is of common human experience that people
overcome by great fear, not only for their lives but also of those
of their loved ones, will choose to remain tight-lipped about an
incident and suffer in silence rather than expose to risk their
own safety and of those for whom they care.17
Anent the appellant’s defense, suffice it to state that his alibi
even if supported by the testimonies of his friends, deserves the
barest consideration.18 This court has held time and again that
the defense of alibi cannot prevail over the positive
identification of the accused by the prosecution witnesses who
___________________
16
TSN, Danilo Tehidor, March 25, 1993, pp. 12-13.
17
People vs. Reoveros, supra.
18
People vs. Gamiao, 240 SCRA 254, 262 [1995].
405
VOL. 278, SEPTEMBER 1, 1997 405
People vs. Dadles
had no untoward motive to falsely testify against him.19
Relevant is the fact that there appears to be no motive on the
part of the prosecution witnesses to fabricate a criminal charge
against the appellant who is admittedly an acquaintance and
whom they have welcomed in their respective households
several times in the past. It must be noted that the prosecution
witnesses in this case are immediate relatives of the victims
whose natural interest in obtaining justice and redress by
securing the conviction of the parties responsible for the crime
would deter them from implicating persons other than the real
culprits.20
Just as oft-repeated is the rule that for alibi to offset the
evidence of the prosecution demonstrating the guilt of the
accused, he must establish not only that he was somewhere else
when the crime was committed but also that it was physically
impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime at the
time that it was committed.21 The defense has failed to meet the
requisites of time and place. Nowhere from the testimonies of
the defense witnesses nor from the circumstances of the case
may we infer that it was physically impossible for the appellant
to be at the scene of the crime at the alleged time of its
commission.
Rogelio’s testimony succeeds only in establishing that the
appellant slept in his house on the night of May 24, 1989.
Rogelio who slept in another room could not have known if
appellant left his house sometime during the night after
everyone else had fallen asleep. Furthermore, from the
appellant’s own admission, Barangay Amontay is only 30
kilome-
___________________
19
People vs. Morales, 241 SCRA 267, 275 [1995]; People vs.
Daquipil, 240 SCRA 314 [1995]; People vs. Rivera, 242 SCRA
26; People vs. Bracamonte, et al., G.R. No. 95939, June 17,
1996.
20
People vs. Danilo Layno, et al., G.R. No. 110833, November
21, 1996.
21
People vs. Paredes, G.R. No. 115217, November 21, 1996;
People vs. Benitez, G.R. No. 116618, November 21, 1996;
People vs. Umali, 241 SCRA 17 [1995]; People vs. De Roxas,
241 SCRA 369 [1995].
406
406 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
People vs. Dadles
ters away from Barangay San Pedro.22 The defense’s theory
that as there was no longer any public transportation available
after six o’clock in the evening, it was impossible for the
appellant to have been able to reach Barangay Amontay fails to
persuade. The absence of public transportation does not negate
the possibility that the appellant availed of other modes of
transportation present at that hour. Thus, it was not totally
improbable for the appellant to have hitched a ride in one of the
many trucks plying that route.
As the core issue in the appellant’s first assignment of error is
ultimately the credibility of the prosecution vis-a-vis the
defense witnesses, it may not be amiss to state herein the well-
settled doctrine that the opinion of the trial court as to who of
them should be believed is entitled to great respect, the latter
having had the unequalled opportunity to directly observe the
witnesses and to determine by their demeanor on the stand the
probative value of their testimonies. And none of the
recognized exceptions to the rule, that is, where the record
shows that facts and circumstances of weight and influence
have been overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied by the trial
court which, if considered, would have affected the result of
the case, and when such findings are arbitrary, exists in the
case at bench.23
We now go to the appellant’s second assignment of error where
he posits that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses fail
to make out a case of kidnapping. It is argued that the
prosecution was unable to indubitably prove that the purpose of
the appellant and his companions in taking the victims was to
deprive them of their liberty.24 We disagree.
Nothing else is clearer from the testimony of Francisca than
that her husband, Alipio and son, Dionisio were taken by the
appellant’s group by force and against their will. Thus:
________________
22
Supra, p. 31; Rollo, p. 57.
23
People vs. Paredes, supra; People vs. Danilo Balamban, et
al., G.R. No. 119591, November 21, 1996; People vs. Nuestro,
240 SCRA 221 [1995]; People vs. Flores, 243 SCRA 374 While these persons you mentioned were
[1995]. hogtying your husband, what did you do?
24
ANSWER:
Supra, p. 28; Rollo, p. 54.
I did not do anything. I asked them why
they hogtied their “tatay.” They answered,
407
“we will free ‘tatay’ if he will surrender the
firearm because we knew (sic) that the
VOL. 278, 407 firearm of your son is with you.”
SEPTEMBER 1,
QUESTION:
1997
In spite of your plea, these persons, who tied
People vs. Dadles
your husband, did not hear (sic) to your
“QUESTION: request?
After that what happened? ANSWER:
ANSWER: No, sir, they did not.
My husband was hogtied downstairs. QUESTION:
QUESTION: While hogtying your husband, what
Personally, who hogtied your husband? happened?
ANSWER: ANSWER:
Morito. They said that if my husband will surrender
QUESTION: to them the firearm, they will free my
Was he assisted by any of his companions? husband and my son.
ANSWER: QUESTION:
Yes, sir. Why, you said awhile ago that it was only
your husband Alipio Tehidor, why what
QUESTION:
happened to your son?
Who among his companions?
ANSWER:
ANSWER:
They were two, my husband and my son
Narito and Mike, only the two of them. were hogtied.
QUESTION: QUESTION:
The two of them were hogtied?
408 ATTY. LABIS:
The question is leading.
408 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED PROSECUTOR AREVALO:
People vs. Dadles I was just confronting the witness. That was the statement
ANSWER: of the witness.
Yes, sir.”25 (Italics supplied.) COURT:
Witness may answer.
The foregoing was corroborated by another eyewitness to the ANSWER:
crime, Danilo who testified as follows:
Yes, sir, his companions were Dindo, Mike, Narito (sic),
Willy and Juanito.
“QUESTION:
PROSECUTOR AREVALO:
At around that time on that date, May 24, 1989 at around
11:00 o’clock in the evening, could you recall if there was QUESTION:
any untoward incident that happened? There were five of them?
ANSWER:
Yes, sir. ___________________
QUESTION: 25
TSN, Francisca Tehidor, July 22, 1992, pp. 8-9.
What was that unusual incident that happened?
ANSWER: 409
My father and brother were taken by them on that evening.
QUESTION: VOL. 278, SEPTEMBER 409
1, 1997
When you said, “taken by them,” whom (sic) are you
referring, who took your brother and father? People vs. Dadles
ANSWER: ANSWER:
Narito Dadles. Yes, sir.
QUESTION: QUESTION:
When you said they took your brother and father was How did they take your brother
Narito Dadles accompanied by other members of his and father?
group? ANSWER:
 Their hands were tied at the back. They went downstairs.
QUESTION: QUESTION:
The two of them, your father and And a few moments later these alleged persons, whom you
your brother? have just mentioned, and your husband and son left your
ANSWER: house peacefully?
Yes, sir.”26 (Italics supplied.) ANSWER:
Yes, sir, because they took them.
As regards the victims Salvador and Antonio Alipan, the QUESTION:
appellant points out that the testimony of Luzviminda who But they left peacefully without any trouble?
witnessed the alleged kidnapping demonstrate that the victims
ANSWER:
were not deprived of their liberty because they went with the
appellant and his companions peacefully without being Yes, sir, nothing happened but they told me not to inform
subjected to threats and coercion.27 The court is not convinced. anybody.

_______________ 410

26
TSN, Danilo Tehidor, March 25, 1993, pp. 4-5. 410 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
People vs. Dadles
27

That the victims’ hands were not tied nor guns poked at their
“QUESTION: sides when they were taken by the appellant’s group do not
And while they were there they requested your husband conclusively preclude the deprivation of their liberty. The
just to come down and talk, is that correct? circumstances surrounding the taking of Salvador and Antonio,
ANSWER: particularly the appellant and his companions’ previous
When they first called us that was what they told us. conduct in kidnapping victims Alipio and Dionisio, plainly
demonstrate their intent to likewise deprive Salvador and
QUESTION: Antonio of their liberty.
So, upon the request of these persons, you have
mentioned, your husband was already obliged to go with True it is that “evidence that one did or did not do a certain
them downstairs? thing at one time is not admissible to prove that he did or did
ANSWER: not do the same or similar thing at another time.”28 However,
“it may be received to prove a specific intent or knowledge,

identity, plan, system, scheme, habit, custom or usage, and the
like.”29 Thus we have held that:
“The general rule is that evidence is not admissible which
shows or tends to show, that the accused in a criminal case has
committed a crime wholly independent of the offense for which
he is on trial. It is not competent to prove that he committed
other crimes of a like nature for the purpose of showing that he
would be likely to commit the crime charged in the indictment.
A man may be a notorious criminal, but this fact may not be
shown to influence a jury in passing upon the question of his
guilt or innocence of the particular offense for which he is on
trial. A man may have committed many crimes and still be
innocent of the crime charged in the case on trial. To permit
proof of other crimes would naturally predispose the minds of
the jurors against the defendant. One who commits one
_________________
xxx xxx xxx
COURT:
When they were taken by the ten men as alleged, were
their hands tied?
ANSWER:
No, sir.
COURT:
Were firearm poked at them?
ANSWER:
No, sir, they were just walking.” (TSN, Luzviminda
Alipan, February 12, 1992, pp. 21-24.)
28
Section 3, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court.
29
Ibid.
411
VOL. 278, SEPTEMBER 1, 1997 411
People vs. Dadles
crime may be more likely to commit another; yet logically, one
crime does not prove another, nor tend to prove another, unless
there is such a relation between them that proof of one tends to
prove the other.”30
In the early case of United States v. Evangelista,31 the accused
was convicted of arson after the trial court admitted evidence
that he had earlier attempted to set fire to the same premises.
Ruling on the admissibility of the said evidence, we said that:
“x x x While it was not the fire charged in the information, and
does not by any means amount to direct evidence against the
accused, it was competent to prove the intent of the accused in
setting the fire which was charged in the information.
“x x x xxx xxx
“x x x: ‘Where a person is charged with the commission of a
specific crime, testimony may be received of other similar acts,
committed about the same time, for the purpose only of
establishing the criminal intent of the accused.’ ”32 (Italics
supplied.)
In this case we find that there is such a relation between both
incidents of kidnapping charged in the two informations that
“proof of one tends to prove the other,” and evidence of similar
acts committed about the same time establishes the criminal
intent of the appellant to deprive Salvador and Alipan of their
liberty. First of all, both incidents happened almost
simultaneously. The kidnapping of Alipio and Dionisio
occurred only some thirty (30) minutes before Salvador and
Antonio were taken from their home. The appellant and his
companions were apparently well acquainted with the Tehidors
and the Alipans who readily allowed them entrance into their
respective houses on the fateful night of May 24, 1989. Alipio
and Dionisio were taken by the appellant’s group on the pretext
that they wanted to talk to Alipio. Similarly, the appellant
claims that they took Salvador and Antonio only
____________________
30
People vs. Asinas, 53 Phil. 59, pp. 67-68 [1929].
31
24 Phil. 453 [1913].
32
Ibid., p. 457.
412
412 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
People vs. Dadles
because they wanted to talk to the former. Alipio’s wife was
warned not to tell the authorities about the incident. The same
warning was given to Salvador’s wife.
Moreover, as correctly pointed out by the Office of the
Solicitor General (OSG), circumstances exist to further warrant
the conclusion that it was the appellant’s criminal intent to
deprive the victims of liberty, to wit:
“First. If appellant’s group merely wanted to talk to Salvador
Alipan, they could just have talked to him then and there at the
house of the latter without necessarily taking him together with
his son.
“Second. Appellant’s group could have elicited the required
information from Salvador in just a matter of hours. Hence,
they should have returned Salvador and his son the following
day as promised. To this date, however, no trace of the two (2)
can be found.
“Third. If they did not have any ill-motive against the duo, why
did they warn the family of the victims not to report the
incident to anybody or they will be killed? Clearly, this
behavior betrays the falsity of their alleged intention.”33
The court therefore finds the appellant guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of kidnapping the victims, Salvador Alipan,
Antonio Alipan, Alipio Tehidor and Dionisio Tehidor.
However, “since none of the circumstances mentioned in
Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code (kidnapping with
serious illegal detention) was proved and only the fact of
kidnapping x x x was established, we find that the crime
committed is slight illegal detention under Article 268 of the
Revised Penal Code. x x x.”34 Moreover, in the execution of
the crime against the first two (2) victims, Salvador and
Antonio Alipan, more than three (3) armed malefactors acted
together in its commission.35 Thus, since the generic
aggravating circumstance of band36 attended the commission of indeterminate penalty of ten (10) years of prision mayor as
the crime and there being minimum to twenty (20) years of reclusion temporal maximum
as maximum for the slight illegal detention of Salvador and
___________________ Antonio Alipan, and the indeterminate penalty of ten (10) years
of prision mayor as minimum to seventeen (17) years and four
33
Supra, p. 30; Rollo, p. 121. (4) months of reclusion temporal medium as maximum for the
slight illegal detention of Alipio and Dionisio Tehidor, both
34 penalties to be served successively according to Article 70 of
People vs. Roluna, 231 SCRA 446, 454 [1994].
the Revised Penal Code on successive service of sentences.
35 Appellant is likewise ordered to indemnify the families of the
Prosecution witness Vicente Alipan testified that the
appellant and his nine (9) companions were all armed. victims in the amount of ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND
PESOS (P100,000.00) each without subsidiary imprisonment
36 in case of insolvency.
Article 14(6), Revised Penal Code.

413 SO ORDERED.

VOL. 278, SEPTEMBER 1, 1997 413

People vs. Dadles

no mitigating circumstance present, the penalty is reclusion

temporal in its maximum period. For the slight illegal detention
of the latter two (2) victims, Alipio and Dionisio Tehidor, the
aggravating circumstance that the crime was committed by a
band as alleged in the information finds no sufficient factual
basis since the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses do not
disclose that at least four (4) of the malefactors were armed.37
Hence there being no aggravating nor mitigating circumstance
attendant in the commission of the crime, the penalty of
reclusion temporal should be imposed in its medium period.

WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is hereby

MODIFIED. Appellant Narito Dadles is found guilty of two
counts of slight illegal detention and is sentenced to suffer the